unicorn
Opinion
- Thread starter Floorist
- Start date
Help Support Flooring Forum:
The use of firearms in self-defense is prevalent. According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by criminologists from Florida State University, Americans use guns in self-defense an estimated 2.2 to 2.5 million times a year, or every 13 seconds. This same study found that, in general, simply brandishing a gun or firing a warning shot is sufficient to defend against an attacker in most cases of self-defense involving a firearm. Only 24 percent of people surveyed reported firing a gun in self-defense, and just eight percent reported wounding an assailant with a gun.
Nick
In Remembrance
....
Found this on another forum, thought it was interesting.
Do you want to compare suicide rates too, as suicides account for 60-70% of the "gun deaths" in America? We've done that in other threads...
Do you really want to compare rates? Let's compare countries that have a third the population of the US. Or compare 1 state to another even? When you break "rates" down into specifics, it starts making states with high rates really good, and a city or couple of cities start looking really bad... heck we did this in a different thread where the premise was Louisiana takes the lead for violence, takes the lead for STDs, and other plights. A state which has less people in it than cities in CA and NY...
Break those rates down... it isn't Louisiana which has wide spread violence and polluted bodies... It's New Orleans and Baton Rouge... Just like Illinois looks bad in generalized terms of "rates" but it's Chicago which is responsible for 95% of homicide, single parent house holds, STDs, etc...
Forget the thread in particular but I blew the false narrative to pieces. Especially when a small town in Texas with a population under 100k I believe it was 60 or 70k? Was brought into the mix. If a town with a small population, with 20 homicides in a year, has a higher rate it is due to lack of population. Meanwhile 20 homicides in LA Chicago Baltimore St Louis NOLA Detroit is a slow night... but the rates are higher for that small Texas town for there is not a million or more. If you want to drag politics into it... you could argue democrats should be banned from firearm ownership.
Good question. I'll counter with one. Why are there laws that protect criminals? Be a burglar. Break into a house. Get bitten by a home owners dog. Be justified in court suing for damages.
Live in a stand your ground state. Be a rapist, be a burglar, car jacker, mugger etc. Get shot. Family gets to take someone who acted in defense to civil court.
Here's another example. Be a landlord in NY state. Have a dead beat tenant who doesn't pay rent. You must file an eviction notice with the sheriff's office and that notice gives 90 days notice for the tenant to be out. And they often will, stay the 90 days. Been there, done that.
What I find comical about the debate... False equivalencies emotional arguments and projection are the only things you and your side of the debate bring to the table.
"If I fear guns, those who own guns fear others who own guns, therefore they buy guns to combat others who have guns"
WRONG. There are those who have a different hobby than yours, those who buy tools for defense, those who believe in the constitution unabridged. Is it fear of others who are armed? Nope. I already have said I wouldn't feel threatened or get excited over someone walking with a weapon on a sling, rifle shotgun etc. So it's not fear. It's more so an appreciation to be independent and not reliant on someone with a badge to come to your aid in the event of a forcible crime being committed upon you, to defending against a form of tyranny.
"If some scumbag that shot up a concert can acquire 33 rifles inside of a year, then anyone else who purchases 33 weapons inside a year will too."
WRONG. There are alot of folks who engage in a hobby that differs from yours. They may buy 1+ weapon per week. Their weapons haven't extinguished life. Why should they, and future generations, have rights curtailed to fit an emotional agenda? Why should those who obey laws be punished for the actions of another, access to certain weapons be denied restricted or limited?
"If this national reciprocity bill goes through and becomes law, there will be a significant rise in tragedies pandemonium and chaos will reign supreme as OK corral shootouts will occur!"
WRONG. If that's the premise, care to explain why states that are shall issue aren't in the lead for firearm related homicide, yet states with strict laws, cities with even stricter laws have higher "rates"? The only ones who should be fearing national reciprocity should be scumbags who don't respect life, property, and engage in criminal enterprise.
"Do it for Muh childrunz! Kids find guns and shoot themselves and others! Columbine Sandy Hook"
WRONG
Kids aren't bullet magnets. Odd I grew up since age 5 handling and shooting firearms. I never once injured or killed myself or others... Irresponsible parents you know, mothers who are simpletons that believe a purse is a catch all and a good place to keep a weapon knowing damn well kids will sift through an unattended purse... You get a Darwin parenting award. Fathers who leave a weapon loaded in the reach of a kid... you get a Darwin parenting award. Why aren't the parents to blame? Because it's easier and feels good to blame an inanimate object, than it is to judge others for stupidity and lack of responsibility. Intellectual laziness really. Couple that with fear mongering and the "forbidden fruit" approach, you have the perfect recipe for disaster. Tell a kid not to do something, what are they going to do? The exact opposite. Kids by nature are inquisitive and curious. Create an allure and wham. You have created your own problem
School shootings. Since I was in highschool, I have been advocating for teachers and faculty members to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. To also train for an event like Columbine or Sandy Hook. Bank trucks offer more incentive and reward to be attacked. Yet they aren't, I wonder if armed guards have anything to do with it... instead how do we handle those scenarios? Remind you I was in highschool following 9/11 with the perceived threat terrorists would attack schools...
Lock down drills. Let's all lay on the floor face down have a teacher sprint to a door with a glass window in said door, lock said door and wait it out like fish in a barrel, and hope and pray the police get here fast. That'll work!
It's a flawed and broken system... I'm not going to appologize for saying so. My system, teacher locks the door puts the pupils out of sight, ears plugged, hides behind the desk parallel to the door. When that glass breaks from someone trying to gain entry, teacher unloads on the would be attacker. Say the threat doesnt enter the building. Shooting from the outside in. Okay. Get to cover. If you have a shot take it. My method, Sandy Hook scumbag would be Swiss cheese. So would the Columbine scumbags. Gun free zones, surprise, don't work. It's about as effective as placing a no wolves allowed sign on the edge of a field full of lambs.
I address the incentive. I seek to remove the incentive. You focus on the implement. If you and your side wished upon a shooting star and magically made every firearm the world over vanish from existence you have solved nothing. You merely eradicated an implement. That implement will change. Rental truck in NYC ring a bell? OKC bombing ring any bells? How about arson? Knife attacks? The wish shouldn't be to eradicate weapons. The wish should be to eliminate evil intentions. You merely seek to transition from one implement to another.
You lack to address the incentive to carry out heinous acts of evil. Best way to eradicate the incentive, a populace of independent individuals with the means of defense to act with impunity to thwart evil on their behalf or their community. This-see something say something and wait until a badge arrives, is not effective. About as effective as 0 tolerance policies in schools regarding bullies. See something? Do something, be the change you seek.
Make an example that rapists, murderers, car jackers, home invaders, muggers, kidnappers, loons with a blood lust, turf wars/gang warfare, will not be tolerated. Stop protecting these villains with gun free zones, stop relying on a broken system, stop relying on a badge-the adult in the room. It won't be pleasant. But it surely would send a message that they and others like them and their actions, will no longer be tollerated. It isn't a glorification of violence against others who seek to plague society with their ill will and evil deeds. It's a justification by making an example out of those who seek to harm. Why reward bad behavior with a stint in the steel bar motel? 3 hots, a cot, cable tv, etc...
Do you want to compare suicide rates too, as suicides account for 60-70% of the "gun deaths" in America? We've done that in other threads...
Do you really want to compare rates? Let's compare countries that have a third the population of the US. Or compare 1 state to another even? When you break "rates" down into specifics, it starts making states with high rates really good, and a city or couple of cities start looking really bad... heck we did this in a different thread where the premise was Louisiana takes the lead for violence, takes the lead for STDs, and other plights. A state which has less people in it than cities in CA and NY...
Break those rates down... it isn't Louisiana which has wide spread violence and polluted bodies... It's New Orleans and Baton Rouge... Just like Illinois looks bad in generalized terms of "rates" but it's Chicago which is responsible for 95% of homicide, single parent house holds, STDs, etc...
Forget the thread in particular but I blew the false narrative to pieces. Especially when a small town in Texas with a population under 100k I believe it was 60 or 70k? Was brought into the mix. If a town with a small population, with 20 homicides in a year, has a higher rate it is due to lack of population. Meanwhile 20 homicides in LA Chicago Baltimore St Louis NOLA Detroit is a slow night... but the rates are higher for that small Texas town for there is not a million or more. If you want to drag politics into it... you could argue democrats should be banned from firearm ownership.
Good question. I'll counter with one. Why are there laws that protect criminals? Be a burglar. Break into a house. Get bitten by a home owners dog. Be justified in court suing for damages.
Live in a stand your ground state. Be a rapist, be a burglar, car jacker, mugger etc. Get shot. Family gets to take someone who acted in defense to civil court.
Here's another example. Be a landlord in NY state. Have a dead beat tenant who doesn't pay rent. You must file an eviction notice with the sheriff's office and that notice gives 90 days notice for the tenant to be out. And they often will, stay the 90 days. Been there, done that.
What I find comical about the debate... False equivalencies emotional arguments and projection are the only things you and your side of the debate bring to the table.
"If I fear guns, those who own guns fear others who own guns, therefore they buy guns to combat others who have guns"
WRONG. There are those who have a different hobby than yours, those who buy tools for defense, those who believe in the constitution unabridged. Is it fear of others who are armed? Nope. I already have said I wouldn't feel threatened or get excited over someone walking with a weapon on a sling, rifle shotgun etc. So it's not fear. It's more so an appreciation to be independent and not reliant on someone with a badge to come to your aid in the event of a forcible crime being committed upon you, to defending against a form of tyranny.
"If some scumbag that shot up a concert can acquire 33 rifles inside of a year, then anyone else who purchases 33 weapons inside a year will too."
WRONG. There are alot of folks who engage in a hobby that differs from yours. They may buy 1+ weapon per week. Their weapons haven't extinguished life. Why should they, and future generations, have rights curtailed to fit an emotional agenda? Why should those who obey laws be punished for the actions of another, access to certain weapons be denied restricted or limited?
"If this national reciprocity bill goes through and becomes law, there will be a significant rise in tragedies pandemonium and chaos will reign supreme as OK corral shootouts will occur!"
WRONG. If that's the premise, care to explain why states that are shall issue aren't in the lead for firearm related homicide, yet states with strict laws, cities with even stricter laws have higher "rates"? The only ones who should be fearing national reciprocity should be scumbags who don't respect life, property, and engage in criminal enterprise.
"Do it for Muh childrunz! Kids find guns and shoot themselves and others! Columbine Sandy Hook"
WRONG
Kids aren't bullet magnets. Odd I grew up since age 5 handling and shooting firearms. I never once injured or killed myself or others... Irresponsible parents you know, mothers who are simpletons that believe a purse is a catch all and a good place to keep a weapon knowing damn well kids will sift through an unattended purse... You get a Darwin parenting award. Fathers who leave a weapon loaded in the reach of a kid... you get a Darwin parenting award. Why aren't the parents to blame? Because it's easier and feels good to blame an inanimate object, than it is to judge others for stupidity and lack of responsibility. Intellectual laziness really. Couple that with fear mongering and the "forbidden fruit" approach, you have the perfect recipe for disaster. Tell a kid not to do something, what are they going to do? The exact opposite. Kids by nature are inquisitive and curious. Create an allure and wham. You have created your own problem
School shootings. Since I was in highschool, I have been advocating for teachers and faculty members to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. To also train for an event like Columbine or Sandy Hook. Bank trucks offer more incentive and reward to be attacked. Yet they aren't, I wonder if armed guards have anything to do with it... instead how do we handle those scenarios? Remind you I was in highschool following 9/11 with the perceived threat terrorists would attack schools...
Lock down drills. Let's all lay on the floor face down have a teacher sprint to a door with a glass window in said door, lock said door and wait it out like fish in a barrel, and hope and pray the police get here fast. That'll work!
It's a flawed and broken system... I'm not going to appologize for saying so. My system, teacher locks the door puts the pupils out of sight, ears plugged, hides behind the desk parallel to the door. When that glass breaks from someone trying to gain entry, teacher unloads on the would be attacker. Say the threat doesnt enter the building. Shooting from the outside in. Okay. Get to cover. If you have a shot take it. My method, Sandy Hook scumbag would be Swiss cheese. So would the Columbine scumbags. Gun free zones, surprise, don't work. It's about as effective as placing a no wolves allowed sign on the edge of a field full of lambs.
I address the incentive. I seek to remove the incentive. You focus on the implement. If you and your side wished upon a shooting star and magically made every firearm the world over vanish from existence you have solved nothing. You merely eradicated an implement. That implement will change. Rental truck in NYC ring a bell? OKC bombing ring any bells? How about arson? Knife attacks? The wish shouldn't be to eradicate weapons. The wish should be to eliminate evil intentions. You merely seek to transition from one implement to another.
You lack to address the incentive to carry out heinous acts of evil. Best way to eradicate the incentive, a populace of independent individuals with the means of defense to act with impunity to thwart evil on their behalf or their community. This-see something say something and wait until a badge arrives, is not effective. About as effective as 0 tolerance policies in schools regarding bullies. See something? Do something, be the change you seek.
Make an example that rapists, murderers, car jackers, home invaders, muggers, kidnappers, loons with a blood lust, turf wars/gang warfare, will not be tolerated. Stop protecting these villains with gun free zones, stop relying on a broken system, stop relying on a badge-the adult in the room. It won't be pleasant. But it surely would send a message that they and others like them and their actions, will no longer be tollerated. It isn't a glorification of violence against others who seek to plague society with their ill will and evil deeds. It's a justification by making an example out of those who seek to harm. Why reward bad behavior with a stint in the steel bar motel? 3 hots, a cot, cable tv, etc...
Nick
In Remembrance
Last i heard , and that was years ago it cost $50,000 a year to house a prisoner . Killing em cost even more money. 
A few years ago some idiot was trying to break in my house in the day time with a crow bar , and the door was unlocked . By the time i got to the door , which took a few seconds . He Rabbit out of site in 6" of snow . Called the cops and told them the next time i see him i was going to Whack him. He said i couldn't unless he was in the house . I told him i would drag him in the house then call him. He just walked away ..
A few years ago some idiot was trying to break in my house in the day time with a crow bar , and the door was unlocked . By the time i got to the door , which took a few seconds . He Rabbit out of site in 6" of snow . Called the cops and told them the next time i see him i was going to Whack him. He said i couldn't unless he was in the house . I told him i would drag him in the house then call him. He just walked away ..
Last i heard , and that was years ago it cost $50,000 a year to house a prisoner . Killing em cost even more money.
A few years ago some idiot was trying to break in my house in the day time with a crow bar , and the door was unlocked . By the time i got to the door , which took a few seconds . He Rabbit out of site in 6" of snow . Called the cops and told them the next time i see him i was going to Whack him. He said i couldn't unless he was in the house . I told him i would drag him in the house then call him. He just walked away ..
In Missouri, we can protect ourselves, our property, our neighbors, their property with deadly force if WE deem it necessary. And we CANNOT be sued for it.
And it is illegal here to register firearms. Also have open and conceal carry with no permit. (we have had one gun death in my county in the last seven years and it was a drug deal gone bad)
![MORE Luxury Vinyl Floor Cleaner for Vinyl Plank Flooring - Ready to Use, Daily Cleaning Formula for Tile, Vinyl Surfaces [Gallon / 128oz]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/413LZHZiqCL._SL500_.jpg)
Nick
In Remembrance
I just might be moving ..
We haven't had a murder in over a week.......... grandson killed his grandpa about a mile from me.
......he used a screwdriver. Haven't heard yet if it was slotted or phillips.
......he used a screwdriver. Haven't heard yet if it was slotted or phillips.
Time to outlaw screwdrivers.
Nick
In Remembrance
There are at least 4 to 6 murders every morning on the news ..
I'm trying to think-- I know of at least 8 murders that happened in my town.
1. A neighborhood guy's son disappeared. They found his truck running with the door open. Never found the body but rumor was that a boy with the last name Monk killed him and stuffed his body in a wood chipper at the lumber mill.
2. The boy who allegedly killed #1 got beat up and killed by one of my brother's friend's uncles. Death was from blunt force trauma to the head.
3. The uncle who killed the boy who allegedly killed the first boy was shot and killed by someone else.
4. The local dentist (and former Mr. Louisiana) got pissed off at his girlfriend and ran her over with his RV (ran over her twice to make sure she was good and dead).
5. Local meth-head "accidentally" shot his friend that had an affair with his wife.
6. Same meth-head "accidentally" shot and killed a woman in the same woods.
7. Boy who lived down the street from a friend of mine got catphished online. When his grandfather refused to give him money to go see the "woman", he stole his grandfather's gun and shot him.
8. The mother of one of my brother's friends got stabbed to death at the local motel.
I'm pretty sure there have been more.
1. A neighborhood guy's son disappeared. They found his truck running with the door open. Never found the body but rumor was that a boy with the last name Monk killed him and stuffed his body in a wood chipper at the lumber mill.
2. The boy who allegedly killed #1 got beat up and killed by one of my brother's friend's uncles. Death was from blunt force trauma to the head.
3. The uncle who killed the boy who allegedly killed the first boy was shot and killed by someone else.
4. The local dentist (and former Mr. Louisiana) got pissed off at his girlfriend and ran her over with his RV (ran over her twice to make sure she was good and dead).
5. Local meth-head "accidentally" shot his friend that had an affair with his wife.
6. Same meth-head "accidentally" shot and killed a woman in the same woods.
7. Boy who lived down the street from a friend of mine got catphished online. When his grandfather refused to give him money to go see the "woman", he stole his grandfather's gun and shot him.
8. The mother of one of my brother's friends got stabbed to death at the local motel.
I'm pretty sure there have been more.
Nick
In Remembrance
Have you forgotten that it doesn't snow there Nick?
Nick
In Remembrance
U can return the snowblower Hi.
.....it won't fit in the overhead.
Nick
In Remembrance
I make it fit ..
sling
"About 4 years ago, I compiled the number of school shootings and figured out the statistics on the yearly number of shootings prior to the Gun Free Zone law versus after the Gun Free Zone law.
From 1979 to 1996 (when GFZ went into effect) there were approximately 2 school shootings per year.
From 1996 to 2012 (the latest data available when I compiled the numbers) there were 5 school shootings per year.
Considering the number so far this year, the situation seems to be getting worse rather than better.
Yet, we still have a plethora of anti-gun fanatics who tout the Gun Free Zone law as a way of protecting our children."
From 1979 to 1996 (when GFZ went into effect) there were approximately 2 school shootings per year.
From 1996 to 2012 (the latest data available when I compiled the numbers) there were 5 school shootings per year.
Considering the number so far this year, the situation seems to be getting worse rather than better.
Yet, we still have a plethora of anti-gun fanatics who tout the Gun Free Zone law as a way of protecting our children."
Yeah, I still remember a friend who is a college professor blaming not having a GFZ for one of her students being murdered. I think I mentioned here before that the student's ex entered the classroom and dragged the girl out kicking and screaming (with no one attempting to stop him) and shot her out in his car. Even if it had been a GFZ he could have come in with a gun and shot her. He could have taken her out and choked her to death or beaten her to death or stabbed her. And maybe if it hadn't been a GFZ, someone might have been able to pull a gun and stop him from removing her from the classroom.
I do think that one reason for the increased shootings is media attention. People want to be on the news and/or become famous and the newsmedia tends to glorify it. Few people remember the names of the victims, but the killers are often immortalized. Some do it for attention. Others because they read about people doing it and think it would be a good way to get revenge or make people notice them.
So in addition to the gun free zone, I think there is a societal shift resulting in the dehumanization of other people, less socialization, and glamorizing of violence.
